[kb49]

EBU

This happened recently in our club. South opened a weak one no trump. West doubled and North bid two diamonds. South said 'Hearts'. East passed and South bid two hearts. North now realised that he had made a mistake when South announced hearts because in fact he had a diamond suit. He now bids three diamonds and the bidding ends. Was North legally allowed to bid three diamonds to correct his mistake? Was the 'heart' announcement unauthorised information to North that he could not act upon or was he perfectly entitled to make the correction?

[campboy]

Yes, the heart announcement was unauthorised information to North (and incorrect -- South should alert a transfer after the double, not announce it). However, it's possible that there would be no logical alternative to bidding 3♦ even without the announcement. That will depend on the hand -- do you have a record of it?

Is it certain that it was North, rather than South, who made the mistake?

[Vampyr]

It's a little hard to decide on LAs unless a meaning is assumed for the 2♥ bid. Big diamond fit wanting a heart lead if doubler becomes declarer?

[kenrexford]

Vampyr, on 2014-May-02, 07:34, said:

It's a little hard to decide on LAs unless a meaning is assumed for the 2♥ bid. Big diamond fit wanting a heart lead if doubler becomes declarer?

Good point, often missed IMO. The analysis itself cannot be sloppy.

We start with the concept of what 2♥ by Opener would mean if 2♦ is natural. To asses that, you have to know what 2♦ as natural shows. If it is drop dead, that's one thing. If it is passable but ongoing (constructive?), that is another thing.

Once we decide that 2♥ means, in the context of what 2♦ would mean, we need to next know what 3♦ would mean to Responder in the context of a natural sequence, and what Responder has. Maybe 3♦ makes sense in that context.

Then, we need to know what 2♦ natural...3♦ after 2♥ shows, to see if passing is an option.

Then, with all of these determinations made, we need to know whether peers would take all of the same actions at all points with all of this information.

Or, you just shoot Responder first, Opener second.

[blackshoe]

As the responses above indicate, this isn't a simple ruling, so I've moved it to "Laws and Rulings".

[karlson]

This is such a common scenario that it has appeared many times in casebooks. It seems that the most common ruling is that the 2♥ bid is sufficient evidence that partner forgot the agreeement (unless 2♦ was not weak of course).

Opener in theory has no UI, so can pass 3♦ at his own risk. In practice there is almost always UI from table mannerisms. I have yet to see that used as basis for an adjustment.

[ggwhiz]

blackshoe, on 2014-May-02, 10:20, said:

As the responses above indicate, this isn't a simple ruling, so I've moved it to "Laws and Rulings".

Indeed. There are so many possible bids by both players that depend on the actual hands the only thing I can add is that while the actual auction may properly be allowed to stand it would be extremely rare. ie. if North truly has no logical alternative to 3♦ and South has diamond support without hearts AND a minimum.

If it's a case of inexperienced players they would be best served by a ruling against them with a gentle explanation of why.

[WellSpyder]

kenrexford, on 2014-May-02, 08:11, said:

Or, you just shoot Responder first, Opener second.

I think you have got this the wrong way round - I would start with opener.